Talk:Deep Learning (South Park)

ChatGPT in the credits: Gag or literal fact?

In the credits of the episode ChatGPT is listed as a writer, I believe the tool should also be credited as a writer on the Wikipedia article until a source of equal or greater reliability says otherwise. 2A02:6B61:4850:0:2130:C57B:C85C:B0BD (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In my understanding, films and TV shows can be used as a primary source for credits, but at the same time, it might be undue to highlight a specific credit unless 3rd party sources highlight it. So far I've only found an analysis by Screen Rant, but it doesn't explicitly say ChatGPT is a co-writer.

The other point, raised by Nightscream, applies more specifically to the infobox; there's no precedent to credit a software tool there. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. There are all sorts of software apps used in production like like Final Draft for writing screenplays, to graphics software like Autodesk Maya, but that doesn't mean that those things are credited as if they are people in the credits of TV shows por movies. It's silly to ignore this. Nightscream (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the undue invocation because for every episode up until this point, we highlight the writer(s) South Park listed in its credit. We don't get to pick or chose writers whether the media mentions them, we can cite the material directly and it's not original research, because it's just copying and pasting what the work of fiction said. So I side with (talk) and believe we should cite the ChatGPT writer because South Park itself does, and we would likely have to remove Trey as a writer from many prior episodes if the criteria are "does a media article mention them?" because many times we just added the writer by looking at the credits. It complies with precedent to do so.

As for Nightscream argument, we could respond by WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT or we could point out that it's pretty unprecedented for a TV show to use an AI to generate an episode, and so we should respond accordingly. However, the best argument here is that there is no reason we should change our existing practice of simply saying the writer is who the show credits and that it violates precedent to determine who is or isn't a writer. If the South Park writers used ChatGPT to write the entire episode, would we just no credit anyone? If there are shows or plays made with ChatGPT in the future, do we just leave them blank? Just because Nightscream is unable to see the difference between Google Docs and ChatGPT does not mean Wikipedia should follow him down this hilarious flawed path. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, regarding this edit summary, by @GreenFrogsGoRibbit:, in which they said:

"In response to Nightscream. 1. That is objectively what plagiarism is. Failure to give credit to an idea that is not yours. 2. Your rationale is flawed and is rightly being overturned by many editors. It's lying and the reasoning is nonsense. Your theory is predicated on the view that if I submit an essay that's 95% ChatGPT, I don't need to credit ChatGPT anymore then I need to credit Google Doc. This argument clearly fails because ChatGPT actually provides content, it's not just a platform."

No, it isn't.

1. Plagiarism means passing off someone else's work as your own. Not crediting that true author is a component of this, but is not, by itself, the definition of plagiarism. Plagiarism requires that the person failing to given credit is crediting themselves for the work. The Wikipedia article does not pass off anyone else's work as the work of Wikipedia. Arbitrarily sticking the word "objectively" in front of this does not make this false claim any more robust.

2. The use of the word plagiarism is predicated on the author in question being a person. Not a software program. ChatGPT is not a person. Thus, if I use Final Draft to help write my screenplay, and omit mention of this, that does not mean it's plagiarism. The idea that plagirism is committed when AI software is not credited is ridiculous.

3. As for your comment about "lying", I'm not sure if this is a reference to your earlier edit summary, in which you stated, "The burden is on you to prove South Park studios was lying.", or if you're implying that the Wikipedia article is lying by omitting mention of this, so I'll address both:

My earlier edit summary (to which the one above was made by you in response) was that the inclusion of ChatGPT in the credits "was a gag". A gag, or joke is not, by defintion, a lie. A lie is a false statement that the speaker intends to be understand by the listener/reader to be literally true. A statement that is uttered with the intention that it be understand as humorous is not a lie. To argue, therefore, that South Park was lying by including a gag in the credits, is just mind-numbingly stupid.

If, however, your claim "it's lying" refers to the omission of this in the Wikipedia article, that is also false. A lie is an intentional attempt to deceive. Deciding, in good faith, that a particular piece of information does not belong in an article, or in a particular section of the article, is not lying, so long as the person omitting it has a sincere, good faith reason for omitting it. Information in Wikipedia articles must be supported by citations of reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of inline citations. If Parker or other creators on the show used ChatGPT to write the episode, and this is covered in such sources, we can certainly add it to the article, but that does not mean that it goes in the credits in the Infobox. At present, there are no sources given for the literal interpretation that the app was actually used in the production, and since Parker and Stone are known to be put gags right before or even in the closing credits (as they did for "Cupid Ye"), it is presumable that the appearance of ChatGPT in the closing credits is a gag. Making the judgment call to not present it as a literal fact, therefore, is perfectly reasonable, and has nothing to do with "lying".

If you're use words like "plagiarism" or "lying", could you at least be a bit less indiscriminate about it, perhaps citing actual reference sources and/or usage patterns for their meaning? Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nightscream Yes, it is.

1. No. No in every regard. Failure to cite an author whose ideas you took is by its definition plagiarism. Any material where someone was involved and you don't credit them is itself plagiarism, not a component but plagiarism itself. It is implied when you fail to include a source, your saying that idea is indeed yours. I agree that this article is not an example of plagiarism, it's just incomplete when we remove ChatGPT. However, if someone posted the script and failed to include ChatGPT, just Trey then that is plagiarism because parts of the script were not written by Trey which the show makes decisively clear.

2. Yeah this is a silly argument that is unanimously rejected by all of academia, and most definitely the job market. Final Cut Pro or Google Docs do not need to be credited because they don't produce scripts or ideas. If you submitted a 10-page thesis of which you wrote a single sentence and ChatGPT wrote the rest and you declined to cite that because "The idea that plagirism is committed when AI software is not credited is ridiculous." would result in you being immediately dismissed from whatever academic institute you were at instantly (assuming they didn't pre-emptively decline your admission given serious ethical concerns). The idea that plagiarism only applies to humans and not AI is so categorically false that I don't think you can find a single accredited college in North America that would back you. Not one.

3. I meant what I said and what I said was very obvious, so I'll only address the point where you dealt with my point "The burden is on you to prove South Park studios was lying." and ignore the part where you sophomorically misinterpreted my statement as a personal attack. You said ChatGPT was a gag and thus deserved no credit without a shred of evidence. You must find evidence that proves it was a joke and not a single line of dialogue was from ChatGPT. South Park is not lying, they told the truth. They wrote some of the script and relied on ChatGPT for other parts. Their credits correctly included ChatGPT because they understand a thing or two about plagiarism, so South Park correctly included their sources. This page should reflect those sources, not ignore the sources because some people have no clue about how plagiarism or credit works. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Failure to cite an author whose ideas you took is by its definition plagiarism. Any material where someone was involved and you don't credit them is itself plagiarism, not a component but plagiarism itself.

That's what I said. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Plagiarism is indeed taking another author's work and passing it off as your own. But here, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a reference work not crediting the supposed "author" in question (ChatGPT). A reference work choosing not to credit an author is not plagiarism.

...would result in you being immediately dismissed from whatever academic institute...

Yeah, for cheating. Not "plagiarism."

South Park is not lying, they told the truth.

I never said they were lying. The person who brought up the notion that that credit, if indeed a gag, would be a "lie", was you, when you wrote "The burden is on you to prove South Park studios was lying"? Again, if you disagree that credit was a gag, then that's a fine position to take, but how is that tantamount to "lying"? How does interepreting that credit as a gag mean that I'm accusing them of "lying"? Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you said "The idea that plagirism is committed when AI software is not credited is ridiculous." remember? That's what you said and this is a lie. If you submitted a thesis and didn't cite ChatGPT, despite ChatGPT writing the whole thing minus the concluding sentence then that's plagiarism. As the oldest University in the English Language speaking world, Oxford, has made clear, plagiarism "is presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement." Thank goodness this is Wikipedia, if we were both graduate students at Oxford, this is where your academic career would've ended. You're just objectively wrong here.

I agree not including ChatGPT here is not plagiarism, it just makes the page incomplete. A critical writer of the script and storyline is omitted for no real reason. To prove my point, I used hyperbole and noted that if we applied your logic to us posting the script and only citing Trey Parker, that would be plagiarism if we turned it in, without citing ChatGPT, to any accredited university. You could remove Trey Parkers involvement and parts of the script would still exist, it's paramount that part of the script gets credit. It also needlessly creates a mismatch from reality and Wikipedia.

Yes, I am saying it's not a gag, it was a serious credit. You're saying it's a gag and that South Park was lying when they listed ChatGPT in the credits. I'm saying do you have any evidence that South Park did not seriously mean it? I believe you're charging South Park Studios of lying because they put in the credits. Ergo we assume those in the credits did the role the credits say they do and you're saying that is false. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you said "The idea that plagirism is committed when AI software is not credited is ridiculous." remember? That's what you said and this is a lie.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact the omission question pertained to those writing a third party reference source on the work, and not those writing the work itself. If it was an accepted practice that software should be credited as a person, then it would be plagiarism if the creators of South Park omitted it. It would not be plagiarism if editors writing an encyclopedia on the episode omitted it, since those editors did not pass off the episode as "their own".

For decades, Al Milgrom was credited as the one whose idea it was that the Hulk's multiple personalities stemmed from childhood abuse at the hands of his father. But it eventually came out that he stole that idea from a script written by Barry Windsor-Smith. Before that fact was widely publicized in the comics press, Milgrom was so credited by others, including Peter David, who referenced this in one of his "But I Digress" columns in the 1990s. Did Al Migrom plagiarize Windsor-Smith? Yes. Did Peter David commit plagiarism when he failed to credit BWS? No. Plagiarism refers to when the author of a work passes off the work of another as their own. Not when a third party fails to properly credit the true author when referring to that work.

You're saying it's a gag and that South Park was lying when they listed ChatGPT in the credits.

No. A gag is not a lie.

Seriously, I don't know exactly what issue you must be suffering to not comprehend this, but let me try one more time:

Jokes and gags are not considered "lies", since usually they are not intended to be understood the listener/viewer as literally true, but as gags and jokes. What part of this do you not understand? If I tell you a joke that involves some story or anecdote about me, and at the end of the story the punchline or resolution reveals it to have a joke (or I flat-out tell you I was joking), does that mean it was a lie? If I tell you a joe about a priest, a rabbit, and imam who walk into a bar, and it ends in a punchline that reveals it to be a joke (assuming you didn't aleady comprehend this from the setup), and you understand that there never actually was a priest, rabbit, imam, or a bar, does that mean that I was lying? Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, petty Wikipedia squabbles. Never change.

Anyway, by the convention set out with Cupid Ye, ChatGPT should be credited as a writer. That convention being that those who are listed in the episode credits are listed here. Because there's absolutely no way Matt Stone wrote or directed that episode, but he is mentioned in the credits as a joke, so it's what's written here.

Regardless, the purpose of Wikipedia editors is not to selective interpret facts, which is what you're doing by omitting ChatGPT here. The episode credits are a primary source. You are not. So accept that and move on. 2A02:8084:5144:D80:2A7E:55FA:C597:FB31 (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Building on what 2A02:8084:5144:D80:2A7E:55FA:C597:FB31 correctly said, your first point continues to show that you're missing the point. I already said "I agree not including ChatGPT here is not plagiarism, it just makes the page incomplete." Yet you keep missing the point and pretend I am charging Wikipedia of plagiarism. I am not, I am saying it's analogous to it. South Park made an episode and a good amount of it was written by ChatGPT. They correctly cited ChatGPT to avoid plagiarism. We are writing an article based on that episode, we cannot selectively choose who to credit, that's the very definition of original research. It's not plagiarism, but it's analogous because a good part of this episode was not written by Trey Park yet for some reason we only credit him. You can't write a reflection on a book, but only credit one author if that one author only wrote a part of the book. That's the issue.

Your hulk analogy is very easy to repudiate. In that case, those who reflected on the writing didn't deliberately ignore a writer. In our case, we are deliberately ignoring a writer that the source material didn't. Let's say it was known that BWS did come up with the Hulk idea, but those who reflected on the writing of the Hulk declined to credit him, but credited others who helped. It wouldn't be plagiarism, but it would be incomplete information analogous to plagiarism. We would be giving credit to someone else for BWS idea KNOWINGLY. I imagine most colleges would, at a bare minimum, penalize the incomplete sourcing. Of course, you said it was never necessary to credit an AI, so if there was a study done entirely by an AI, you wouldn't source it at all and that would be plagiarism.

No evidence it was a gag at all. Seemed like a routine credit that you're trying to disregard for some reason. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per article at writer, "a writer is a person". Therefore by definition a writer in WP cannot be an AI program. The article has been rewritten to give the appropriate mention, but the infobox should remain as is per the definition of a writer. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this argument is even easier to repudiate than Nightscreams's argument. Per the article at Composer, "A composer is a person who writes music." Under this view, you would have to delete all of these articles which attribute music composition to an AI (1), (2) and (3). Good luck getting the Wikipedia music community not to correctly declare war on you for that clearly erroneous move. Your edit has been undone. We've discussed this for a while, I'm going to start an RFC to end it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is that those examples appear to describe software that generates music autonomously, "with no human intervention", according to the lede section of one of those articles. The credits of this article do not indicate that ChatGPT was used to autonomously write its script. Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Should ChatGPT be credited as a writer in the infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should ChatGPT be credited as a writer in the infobox? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes - This episode of South Park was written by Trey Park and ChatGPT. Some editors have decided that we should omit one of these writers and attribute all credit to another one in a precedent-breaking manner. Their primary argument is that a writer must be a human, so if South Park one day creates an episode written entirely by an AI, these proponents would have us deliberately leave the entire writing credit blank. If studies or algorithms are invented by AI, the same rule would apply and Wikipedia would declare these entities had no creator. This is all predicated on the idea that using an AI (a nonhuman entity that comes up with ideas and writes scripts) is analogous to say Google Doc (a nonhuman entity that outside of spell check, does not write scripts and is capable of writing ideas). Please note that many songs out there have been entirely composed by AIs, so we'd have to delete all those pages under this theory or at the very least modify them to omit the composer since they are not human. It is not nor has it ever been our job as editors to selectively chose who is and isn't a writer. We should simply copy and paste what the original source says when it comes to credits and do no more. If a source is revealed to have new writers or some writers are wrongly given the credit we can deal with that case by case, but the community need not answer that question today. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Since no one else has commented yet, would you be willing to rephrase the RfC question? It's unnecessarily broad, and I think the negative phrasing creates confusion about what "support" and "oppose" mean. Maybe instead: Should ChatGPT be credited as a writer in the infobox? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Mx. Granger Done. Thanks for the advice. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it's listed in the credits so why not.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - the episode credits are a primary source here. To not list it would be to put personal opinion of a handful of wikipedia editors over facts from the people who make the show. 212.129.85.247 (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - Credits are for people. Not software used, per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 10:10 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• No - Just because other matters have been "created" by AI does not deter from the fact that "a writer is a person". A writer is an artist, someone who creates something out of nothing. A piece of software is no smarter than its programming and is incapable of independent, unique thought. The article has been properly noted with the fact that the credits list ChatGPT as a "writer", but this portion of the script was not uniquely written. In fact, in one of the reviews of the episode, a reviewer noted that this section "sounded like a lazy episode of South Park." Is artificlal intelligence growing and changing? No doubt, but at this point in time AI is still incapable of unique creativeness. The ChatGPT software didn't "write" this portion of the episode, it re-used existing lines of dialogue and scenes from the information it was able to gather. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  "unique creativeness" is overrated. I don't think it's necessary to get philosophical here; credits go to people, no matter how good/bad/derivative the work. The article for the AI-generated Edmond de Belamy lists a collective of people in the "Artist" field. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - Its simple. We list the credited writers. We WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The episode is credited as being by Trey Park and ChatGPT, so that is what we record. If we only show Trey Park (for whatever reason) then we are doing WP:OR, which is wrong and a disservice to the reader. - X201 (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - If it is a credited as writer it can be listed in the infobox. BogLogs (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. South Park cheekily lists ChatGPT as co-writer, because that's the show's of-the-moment style. But as more media is developed with this tool, I doubt shows will explicitly say "Co-writer: ChatGPT" in the credits. As has been said, credits are for people. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. Per above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. Although it would be kind of funny as we'd be playing into South Park's message with this episode, the concept / artistic endeavour here is from the South Park creators, not the app. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Would having just Parker in the Infobox with an {{efn}} explaining that ChatGPT was also credited be considered? I don't know if it's of relevance or interest to this RfC, but WGA West takes the position that AI-generated text should have no bearing in determining writing credits wrt guild work and considers it having no role in chain of title, and their current proposal in contract negotiations concerns this. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have no opposition to such a note as a compromise. The fact that the WGA does not factor writing tools into credits further makes it clear that not treating it as a person in the Infobox of the article would accurately reflect the practices of the writing profession at large. Nightscream (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I reject this note as a compromise as too many people have voted with the initial question in place. I do think this suggestion should be debated in another RFC once this RFC closes. If this RFC ends up going in the way of Horseradishy and I, as it currently is by a narrow margin, then I would urge either of you to start your own RFC doing so. If it ends up going Nightscream way, then I'm not sure if there would be a point but feel free to start it. I express no views on the subject of whether a labor union taking a position is what Wikipedia should defer too, but I would if another RFC began. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is a good compromise that acknowledges the RFCs' arguments. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, most of the sources list ChatGPT as a writer, not crediting ChatGPT would be WP:OR. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• No. This is a show that uses its credits as part of the joke. For example, every role in Trapped in the Closet (South Park) was credited to “John Smith”, and S26E01 over-credited Matt Stone in continuation of the episode’s theme. This episode is another example of the credits being in-character rather than literal and factual. We should not be so credulous as to take them at face value. I’ll change my mind when ChatGPT or OpenAI receives a share of the episode’s royalties. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  "This episode is another example of the credits being in-character rather than literal and factual."

  2A02:8084:5144:D80:317B:B389:95B2:8483 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes I have yet to see any source be provided by a "No" !voter that supports the idea that crediting ChatGPT is a joke, infactual, a in-character joke, anything of the sort. Since none have been provided, any claim up until this point stating so is textbook WP:OR. Therefore, my !vote goes towards content that is actually sourced, as per Wikipedia's core policies; a primary source (i.e. the opening credits within the primary source that is the episode) supersedes unsourced opinions and personal ideologies on terminology. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the crux of our argument is it's a joke e.g. infactual, it's that mentioning (likely factually) an AI in the credits underlines the episode's theme. The "joke" is highlighting it, not that it's inaccurate. Shows in the future co-written by AI will likely not do this; it would be like crediting Respeecher for Darth Vader's voice in Obi-Wan Kenobi. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.